Re: OT (yeah, right!): Politics

Wrong. See: http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm
...
(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the
requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of
hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to
deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the
circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the
criteria. Note the following examples:
...
(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in
the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the
"friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of
inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
...
There seems to be no doubt, however, that the wound in question
was relatively minor and stretched the criterion on that basis.

A lot more than one person supports him. Some of those who attack him
are proven liars. For instance, there is a doctor who claims to have
treated Kerry for his shrapnel wound but the record shows that someone
else treated him. One of the vets claiming that there was no hostile
fire during the engagement for which that same vet received a bronze
star, citing hostile fire.

Are those not the smae people claiming that Kerry filed false reports,
when in fact those reports (putting aside for th emoment the issue of
ther veracity) were not even filed by Kerry?
How many of the people at 'swiftboats.com' ever saw Kerry in Vietnam
or anywhere else?

'Served with Kerry' is a bit of a stretch. How many of those
ever even SAW Kerry in person? All but one of his surving crew,
who have come forward to speak, support him.

Somehow a self-inflicted wound from your own grenade launch, even if it
was trying to destroy enemy stores seems to fall short of the spirit of the
above exception.

The reference was to the photo that was promoted in the Kerry ad during
which Edwards intoned, "if you want to know what kind of leader John Kerry
is, just ask those who served with him" while the above photo was
displayed. In *that* photo, only one of the people in that photo supports
Kerry, the remainder are either dead (2 or 3), have no opinion, or label
Kerry as unfit for command. The use of that photo by the Kerry campaign is
disengenous at best.

In the latter case, said vet was greatly suprised about the content of
the citation. He thought he had received the citation for his jumping in
the water and working to save the boat hit by the mine. He did not see the
citation as it was written and disputes the contents of the citation that
says there was intense enemy fire.

Take a browse through the web site -- a significant number.

Well, I would guess that those in the picture with Kerry that Kerry used
in his ad probably at least saw him. Of those in the picture, only one of
them who is still alive supports Kerry.
Those who served on other boats with Kerry certainly knew him. They went
into battle with him expecting certain behavior in achieving tactical
objectives. According to those commanders on the other boats, Kerry was
not reliable as a commander in a flotilla of boats going into battle. It
is certainly possible that actions Kerry took were viewed positively by his
own crew because they thought he was keeping them personally safe while the
other commanders viewed his actions negatively because his self-preserving
actions placed the other boats and thus their crews in greater danger.

Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?

It's the height of hypocrisy. I think they are trying to downplay his war
record now that it wasn't smooth sailing. He should be honored for his
service but it seems clear he at least embellished his performance and
his motives all along was to make a name for himself. I think the DNC
shot themselves in the foot on this one. Blaming Bush for the ads is
weak and pathetic, especially when he already denounced all such
ads. I'm enjoying the spectacle of watching them trying to put the genie
back in the bottle.

I don't agree. It fall squarely in with the above exception. A more
important consideration is the severity of the wound and it would appear
that shrapnel wound was minor.

But this makes clear the fact that whether or not there was enemy
fire is not relevant. Thus the criticism that there was no enemy
fire is not relevant and therefor dishonest.
It is clear that there was much confusion in that incident. Those
who concluded there was no enemy fire and those who concluded there
was, may be equally honest. But those who attribute to Kerry,
statements made in reports by others, are plainly dishonest.
In particular, the man Kerry pulled from the water says he was thrown
into the water by a second explosion, after the mine explosion, and
shots were fired at him while he was in the water.
I rather hope that was NOT freindly fire.

And I'll add that the present administration, protestations aside,
undoubtbly appreciates their efforts. Having this on their resume
might prove highly advantageous in the future. Of course that swings
both ways.

As I said above, I think that is their point of view. I don't know
how many would or have gone as far as lying though.

You are confusing awards here. The purple heart requires injuries
inflicted in the presence of enemy fire (the exception you mention noted).
The boat *was* hit by a mine, that counts as enemy fire; the second vet's
actions were a result of that enemy action and were certainly valourous.
What surprised him was that the citation indicated that they were under
"intense enemy fire from both banks", this is what he indicates was untrue.

Where is your evidence that others made those statements in the reports?
It is possible that the report for the second vet's citation was taken
verbatim from the report for Kerry's citation -- that doesn't provide any
citation of original authorship.

The man had been thrown in the water and was potentially disoriented.
The swift boats indicated that they did fire into the banks to suppress any
potential fire that they were afraid might take place. It is highly likely
the guy in the water mistook the fire from the boats for incoming fire
while he was trying to get himself oriented.

Again, I do not understand that last remark, but:
Here are some statements attributed to 18 putative Swift Boat vets:
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes
These men clearly state that their criticism of Kerry is based on
his antiwar activities and make no claim (on that page) to have
even seen Kerry in person in Vietnam or elsewhere. O'Neill at least
has seen him stateside.
James Steffes
Robert Brant
Richard O'Mara
William Shumadine
Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
David Wallace
Bernard Wolff
Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)
Joseph Ponder
Robert Elder
Jeffrey Wainscott
Andrew Horne
John O'Neill
This man criticizes Kerry's performance in Vietnam, without actually
coming out and saying that he ever saw Kerry, and criticizes
his anti war activity.
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
This man says that Kerry was under his command in Vietnam. He does not
criticize Kerry's perfomance in Vietnam, but does criticize his anti-
war activity.
Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
This man disagrees with Kerry in regards to the success, or lack thereof
of a specific campaign, and does not remember meeting with Kerry, though
Kerry claims he did.
Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)
This man served with Kerry on a Swift boat. He is the only man to have served
with Kerry on a Swift boat who is critical of Kerry.
Steven Gardner
This man says he knew Kerry in Vietnam and crtiticizes his antiwar activity,
not his performance in Vietnam, but does criticize his first PH.
Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)
Fifteen of the Eighteen criticize him soley based on his antiwar
activity with no comment on his performance in Vietnam. Some such
as Steffes, lie about Kerry's statements.
That also leaves 232 putative Swift boat verterans against John Kerry
unaccounted for, other than by signature here:
http://www.swiftvets.com/article.php?story 040629220813790
And that letter is clearly critical of his antiwar activity, without
substantive commment on his service in Vietnam.

How could Kerry throw those medals in your face? He already threw them in the
Reflecting Pool.
Oh, wait, those were somebody *else's* medals he threw, weren't they?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

At least he had some to throw. The only medals Shrub qualified for...whoops, no
he didn't. Officers don't get Good Conduct Medals, since one assumes they're
ossifers an' gennelmens. And he wouldn't have qualified anyway, being over the
hill for a year.
Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.
todd

That was just one of the three. Another was supposedly "contusion, minor...
treated with cold compress" IOW an ice-bag on a bruise.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Probably because the Medal of Honor paperwork has to be written by someone
*else*.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
fairly comical point.
To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
record to run on, the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
believe it.

On the contrary, I follow politics closely and watch and read lots of
news outlets. Tax cuts that are 100% at the expense of the national
debt are not a tax cut. They are a loan that you are taking out to
help subsidize the guys who really got the big tax cuts. Shifting the
tax burden from the upper class to the middle class (maybe you saw the
GAO report of a week ago?) is bad economic policy, because it lowers
consumer spending and spending is what powers the economy. For
similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
increases while not providing spending stimulation. Yeah, the economy
may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.
I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
not after 9/11 happened on his watch?). I also give Clinton some
credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
administration). I also fault both Bush and Clinton for not doing
enough. Homeland Security seems to be bureaucracy and little else,
and I don't give Bush credit for dragging his feet on the 9/11
commission report recommendations. I especially don't give him credit
for the bungling mess that is Iraq, and was supposed to be his
centerpiece in the war on terror.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "the adminstration was
behind it", but I agree that their policies have been ineffective,
their statements have been misleading, and their general performance
has been poor. Demonstrably poor by almost any statistic you look at.
What do you define as lefty hate books and films? I watch CNN and Fox
News at night, I read the Denver Post in the morning and the
Washington Post online. Sometimes in the shop I listen to Savage or
Drudge on AM radio, although I admit I only do that for a laugh.
Rarely I read the Wall Street Journal and once in a while even the
Weekly Standard. If you think all of those are "lefty" media then I
am not sure what your idea of "mainstream" media is.

Yes, I agree that the child tax credit refund checks were stimulative.
No question. But let's put this in context: the child tax credits
benefited about 26 million tax filers with an average check of $615.
Total cost was $16 billion. Taxpayers earning over $1M (0.1percent of
households, or 184,000 beneficiaries) received at total of $17billion
in cuts, an average check of $93,500. This comes from
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-03tax.htm ... which I admit is left-leaning.
However, a similar report by the President's own supposedly neutral
Congressional Budget Office shows that the tax burden is
preferentially benefiting the very wealthy, and the relative tax
burden is shifting to the middle class:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut /
Philosophy aside on whether or not the middle class or the rich
deserve a bigger cut, it's still worth noting that all of these cuts
are coming directly out of the national debt. These are a tax cut
fully borrowed against the debt, and most of it does go to the
wealthy.

Glad you are prospering. Many others are not. Neutral statistics
clearly show that this recovery is tepid at best.

That's false reasoning. If tax cuts help the economy the deficit is
reduced as well.

Like who? The evil rich? Why shouldn't they get a tax cut as well?

That liberal hysteria. The are angry that money doesn't get
distributed the way they want. The tax burden is growing because
government is growing and there's less earners per entitlement
recipients. Punishing the achievers has an adverse effect as
history proves. That's bad economics!

You are overlooking the dot com hot air balloon for one thing...several
wars...911, etc.

I have a news flash for you. The whole world has been in a recession.

I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?

Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?

Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
and Japan with much heavier losses.

Only if your brain has been crippled by left wing hate propaganda.

There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
like you bought it hook, line and sinker.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.